Public Warning: A Critical Juncture for Canada’s National Public Alerting System
Mandy Maier
Graduate Student, Department of Communication Studies, Mount Saint Vincent University
Abstract
Emergency alerting in Canada is largely misunderstood, yet is at the forefront of crisis communication. 2023 is pivotal as Pelmorex, the private company which owns, operates and funds Canada’s alert distribution system, seeks renewal of its broadcasting license.
Examined are CRTC notices, hearings and decisions and Canadian alerting examples. Issues facing the National Public Alerting System range from inadequate alert fatigue analysis to outdated broadcast immediate alert categories. Ongoing public education is key to its effective use.
Despite recent progress, there is no known backup in place to communicate critical, lifesaving information to Canadians, should Pelmorex cease to exist.
Introduction
Hindsight is 20/20. It’s easier to evaluate the successes and failures of risk management and communication when an imminent threat has subsided. Destruction, threats due to climate change (Natural Resources Canada, 2022) and an increasing Canadian violent crime severity index (Statistics Canada, 2022) continue to impact public safety on a national scale.
Canada is not immune to natural, environmental or human-related disasters. Two people died after wildfire consumed nearly the entire village of Lytton and 600 heat-related deaths occurred in British Columbia (2021) during an extreme temperature heat dome.
Tropical storms Dorian (2019) and Nicole (2022) pummelled Atlantic Canada at greater strength than ever before, prompting storm-specific alerts and for a missing child during the height of Nicole.
Mass casualty murders in Nova Scotia (2020) and Saskatchewan (2022) resulted in the deaths of 22 and 11 victims, respectively. From 2011-2021, 85 AMBER Alerts were distributed for 111 child victims and eight were killed (Canada’s Missing, 2022).
These highly-publicized events, among others, resulted in immense public and media attention. Not to mention the 1,307 broadcast and wireless immediate (BI) emergency alerts distributed via Canada’s National Public Alerting System (NPAS) since 2019 (Alert Ready, 2022).
Pelmorex, the private company that owns, operates and funds the system which distributes BI alerts to the public, identifies public alerting messages as “helping forewarn the Canadian public of any imminent danger related to persons or property” (Pelmorex, 2019, p. 5). Public expectation is significant when it comes to warning notifications and Canada is at a critical juncture to strengthen its NPAS.
While public alerting has been discussed generally in recent years, the research goals were aimed at exploring Canada’s NPAS as a largely uncharted and misunderstood subject and provide context around its many intricacies and limitations in its current state. Little Canadian-focused academic NPAS research exists. This paper examines extensive government notices, hearings, reports and applications outlining the foundation and development of the NPAS, in addition to articles and surveys summarizing public reaction and perception towards it. Given the limited quantity of academic inquiry on a topic directly relating to the wellbeing and safety of the Canadian public, it should come as no surprise that gaps pinpointed require further exploration. The foremost recommendation is to bolster and contribute to Canadian NPAS research on a much broader scale.
PART ONE: A history of Canadian emergency communications
With the availability of live streaming technology and prevalence of wireless devices featuring image and video recording, emergency communications faces intense scrutiny as the world watches human-driven tragedies and natural disasters unfold in real time. The emergence of modern technologies has resulted in inevitable public expectation to be informed during an unfolding crisis when there is an imminent threat to human safety. The public also demands instruction to avoid or eliminate personal tragedy.
Air raid sirens first appeared in targeted Canadian locations in 1941, during World War II. These sirens were decommissioned and removed after World War II. Air raid sirens were mounted by military and government officials in larger Canadian communities during the Cold War, between 1951 and 1963, as part of the National Attack Warning Siren system, to notify of an imminent nuclear attack. Debate over siren management responsibilities left some sirens in prolonged storage, “crippling the public’s only warning system” (Burtch, 2012, p. 104). Locally-driven initiatives resulted in the eventual installation of air raid sirens in less-populated locations nationally.
To assist in preparing for potential nuclear attack, the Canadian Government paired air raid siren installation with survival exercises, often linked to national events or holidays. This included siren tests to determine how far the audible noise would travel. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), in conjunction with the Government of Canada’s Department of Communications, was responsible for communicating next steps during a national emergency (Gow, 2007, p. 279). The ultimate goal of exercises was to educate the public about the siren’s purpose and directives, “These tests often involved hundreds of observers who reported on the audibility of sirens, as well as concerted public relations campaigns to forewarn the public” (Burtch, 2012, p. 106).
Post-test news coverage proved there were not enough sirens to warn the public. On November 13, 1961, exercise Tocsin B, simulated a high-casualty Soviet bomber aircraft attack on Canada. 200 air raid sirens sounded throughout the country as Tocsin B unfolded during a three-hour live television and radio broadcast. Ultimately, the public either failed to hear the air raid sirens altogether, or did not receive adequate advanced instruction to yield a response. Families who couldn’t afford to build a safety shelter failed to locate shared public shelters. News reports noted the warnings would have been too late to notify the public to provoke any reaction (Powell, 2018).
Communication links with the siren network were cut in 1968 to save on emergency measures funding and the focus on emergency communications moved towards radio broadcast notification. During emergencies, the CBC communicated actions the public needed to take via radio “in conjunction with the federal government’s Department of Communications, (who) had responsibility for ensuring that an emergency broadcasting system was in place to warn the Canadian population in case of a national emergency” (Gow, 2007, p. 279).
The Cold War ended and sirens were decommissioned in the 1990’s. Public anxiety resulting from shifting stability internationally prompted brief consideration for reactivating sirens. Today, sirens are largely community heritage markers or buried in landfills after being scrapped once their purpose expired.
The infancy of what is now Canada’s modern-day NPAS began in 2000, when the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) received an application to amend Palmorex Communication Inc.’s license to broadcast warning communications to the public taking “…the form of alphanumeric crawls” (CRTC, 2000, para. 1).
Pelmorex, headquartered in Oakville, Ontario, is owned and operated by Canadian businessman Pierre L. Morrissette via various subsidiaries. Founded as Pelmorex Media Inc. in 1989, its one brand in the Morrissette organization. Also included is The Weather Network and MétéoMédia (TWN/MM), multi-faceted weather information and distribution companies acquired by Pelmorex in 1993. The application noted above was one part of Pelmorex’s greater application to the CRTC for the renewal of TWN/MM’s mandatory broadcasting license.
The CRTC denied this application in February, 2001, citing concerns with their proposal. Pelmorex was not deterred and submitted a subsequent application to establish a Canadian emergency alert system. In 2005, the CRTC issued a public notice to establish emergency alert services in Canada. Pelmorex Communications, the CBC and Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership submitted applications to develop such a platform (CRTC, 2007).
While the CRTC was entertaining these applications, beginning in 2002, Industry Canada led several initiatives labeled CANALERT to start a new public warning notification system (Gow, 2007). Planning stages were underway for CANALERT to deliver emergency communications information over radio and television broadcast, via text message to wireless devices and the Internet. CANALERT lacked federal funding and upon the CRTC’s 2009 approval of Pelmorex Communications’ (now branded Pelmorex Corp. and hereafter, Pelmorex) application to develop an alerting platform, CANALERT ultimately folded.
Initially, there was substantial opposition to implementing mandatory radio and television emergency alerts, noted in a 2007 CRTC Broadcasting Public Notice. The idea of a for-profit company interrupting a broadcasting signal with mandatory emergency messages prompted several broadcasters to file a submission of opposition to the CRTC, which stated, “…allowing third parties to interrupt programming would fundamentally undermine the broadcasters' editorial independence and journalistic integrity” (CRTC, 2007, para. 38). Thus, mandatory radio and television emergency alerts were not immediately implemented.
No funds were identified or assigned by the government, or other agencies, at the time to undertake the development of a federally-developed emergency alerting system in Canada. In the associated 2009 CRTC Broadcasting Order, it is noted however, “Public Safety Canada may decide to incorporate Pelmorex’s aggregation and distribution services into a full national emergency alerting system, or to arrange to have these functions fulfilled independently” (CRTC, 2009, para. 24). Pelmorex assumed all financial costs associated with the development of the system as part of its application and CRTC approval of mandatory broadcast distribution undertakings of TWN/MM.
Upon application approval, Pelmorex created the National Alert Aggregation and Dissemination (NAAD) system. The NAAD system is a web platform acting as a collector of emergency communications information input from a designated alert issuer. This information was initially only communicated publicly via radio and television broadcast distributors – called a broadcast immediate (BI) alert. When the NAAD system officially launched on July 9, 2010, it became the central, technical infrastructure for what is now known as Canada’s NPAS (Pelmorex, 2011).
In 2011, Pelmorex responded to a CRTC Broadcasting Notice of Consultation, saying it was clear the state of communicating imminent threats to public safety in Canada would not exist in the absence of Pelmorex assuming responsibility for the NAAD system. In response to Bell Companies calling for Pelmorex to transition the NAAD system to the Government of Canada, Dan Hefky, former chair of the Canadian Council of Emergency Management Organizations representing provincial and territorial emergency management agencies, is quoted as saying,
…many provincial and territorial governments had no budget to fund a NAAD system, and thus without Pelmorex’s willingness to operate the NAAD system, there would be no national public alerting system. On an ongoing basis, it is clear that Pelmorex is needed not only for funding and technical expertise, but also for its credibility and relationships with the emergency management community and its long-term commitment to public alerting. These allow it to provide structures for consensus building, forums for problem solving and a much-needed sense of urgency to the task of building a pan-Canadian public alerting systemFootnote 1.
In a shared approach to emergency and risk management, user agreements were developed between emergency management organizations and Environment and Climate Change Canada to distribute emergency alerts via the NAAD system.
In August, 2014, a CRTC Broadcasting Regulatory Policy and Order mandated all Canadian broadcasters to distribute NPAS alerts. This was the result of “a lack of voluntary participation by broadcasters” (CRTC, 2017, para. 3) in distributing BI alerts to the public after they opposed it in 2007.
A three-year pilot project was also undertaken by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Public Safety Canada in 2014 with a goal to develop long-term evolution technology (LTE) for issuing emergency communications via wireless technology. The CRTC also “…strongly encourage(ed)…the use of digital media and mobile platforms to alert Canadians to imminent or unfolding dangers, particularly given the increase since 2011 in the use of mobile devices by Canadians” (CRTC, 2014, para. 101).
The pilot project’s 2017 conclusion resulted in the CRTC directing wireless service providers to distribute BI alerts by April, 2018 via a Telecom Regulatory Policy (CRTC, 2017). Henceforth, wireless service providers were required to join broadcasters in distributing BI alerts from the NAAD system directly and immediately to the general public. In short, the public could thereafter receive a BI alert via radio, television and a personal wireless device connected to an LTE-network. This wireless device would sound a unique alert tone and vibration when a BI alert was issued in the device’s respective area.
-
Long description
Photograph of a person’s hand holding a mobile device with the floor in the background. On the device screen large text reads “Emergency Alert”. There is a white screen overlaid showing the message used by SaskAlert during a test of the National Public Alerting System.
Figure1: Test wireless alert issued November 16, 2022 in Saskatchewan. Image by author.
Pelmorex’s August, 2018 application to renew their license term to August 31, 2025 – two years more than the CRTC’s five-year period renewal practice – was denied by the CRTC. The CRTC’s decision was based on a continually-changing NAAD system, “Granting a five-year renewal for TWN/MM would allow for a timelier reassessment of factors related to the mandatory distribution of the service, especially the administration and operation of the NAAD system and the appropriateness o f supporting the NAAD system through mandatory distribution on the digital basic service” (CRTC, 2017, para. 36).
The license renewal was ultimately approved until 2023, with Pelmorex fully funding the maintenance of and upgrades and advancements to the NAAD system. Pelmorex committed to exploring new ways to broadcast emergency information to the public during the term, such as lottery terminal screens and electronic highway signs, and fund an additional three million dollars in capital improvements above operating costs during the license period (Pelmorex, 2017, para. 107).
Paul Temple, Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Strategic Affairs for Pelmorex in 2018, was questioned as part of the April 30 CRTC public hearings, as to whether the NAAD system could operate on its own, without TWN/MM’s mandatory broadcasting license. He responded,
…[Pelmorex] would always act responsibly. It’s not - you know, we’re not going to turn off public alerting if the [CRTC] were to deny the [mandatory broadcasting] application. We would hope that there is some kind of transition and we would work with government authorities to see if they were prepared to pay for [the NAAD system] service… why go there when what is working now works so well and really is a positive? There’s really no pushback on the fact that we operate the system… I think the situation as it operates now is ideal and you know, there’s a saying, you know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it and I think we’re basically in that situationFootnote 2.
Law enforcement are delegated the authority to distribute alerts. A 2021 Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police resolution challenged Public Safety Canada to prioritize our essential national public alerting system (p.13). Varying levels of government and emergency management organizations continue to work collaboratively to implement and delegate use of the NAAD system across Canada. Sharing the function of alert issuer applies a wider range of knowledge and expertise and ensures a shared approach to emergency management. This contributes to an overall effective emergency communication system.
As of 2022, FM and AM radio stations, over-the-air television stations, subscription-based television providers and wireless service providers publicly distribute BI alert data input to the NAAD system. Currently subscribers to Netflix or Crave, for example, would not receive BI alerts via these, or other, streaming services.
Pelmorex’s current broadcasting license term will expire on August 31, 2023, if not renewed by the CRTC (CRTC, 2018, para. 94-95).
PART TWO: The current state of alerting in Canada
In Canada, emergency management agencies at the federal/provincial/territorial levels delegate use of the NPAS to authorized alert issuers, such as law enforcement, within their respective jurisdictions for specific events. All Canadian provinces and territories have the ability to distribute alerts via the NAAD system. Policies and procedures associated to delegated use of the NPAS falls to respective emergency management organizations. Federally, only Environment and Climate Change Canada has the ability to distribute BI alerts – primarily Tornado and severe thunderstorm events.
Relevant federal/provincial/territorial emergency management delegates determine which alert issuers will be assigned and have access to distribute specific event alerts via the NAAD system. Not all events can be distributed by all alert issuers, nor do all events have the ability to be distributed BI to the public. BI-alerts can be distributed strategically to broadcasters and wireless devices, or one of the two individually. When any alert is cancelled, there is no option for it to be distributed as BI. Alerts can be geo-targeted to a specific area, radius or defined rural/municipal jurisdiction that is specified within the NAAD system.
The Common Alerting Protocol is an internationally-developed electronic messaging format standard used to help eliminate alerting technical issues. It was adopted as a Canadian Profile (CAP-CP), or version, in March, 2005. It is defined by Public Safety Canada as “a set of rules, and managed lists of values, that are recommended for use in Canada” (Public Safety Canada, para. 1) with respect to emergency alerting. There are four main requirements for common electronic messaging that must be satisfied within CAP-CP, including one event subject and requirements associated to language, event and location identification per alert message.
The Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management (SOREM) under Public Safety Canada, blend and enhance emergency practices nationally. There are currently 144 eventsFootnote 3 as per the CAP-CP. In 2014, SOREM identified 32 of these events as having an imminent or unexpected threat to life and designated authorized alert issuers the ability to distribute BI alerts for those events via the NAAD system. The remaining 111 events, including dangerous person, animal disease, aviation, infectious disease and school lockdown, among others, do not meet the CAP-CP codes and cannot be distributed as BI (National Public Alerting System, 2014).
For an alert to be distributed as BI, specific CAP-CP values must be met for an event’s urgency, respective action the public must take, severity associated to the threat and certainty of the event occurring. If these values are not met, there is no option for the alert to be distributed as BI and it will be considered an advisory, or non-BI alert. Currently, in the absence of a provincially-managed website or mobile application, notification of a non-BI alert is only available via The Weather Network mobile application and website, privately maintained public interest websites and/or if a broadcaster chooses to voluntarily notify the public.
More than half, 19 of the 32, SOREM-identified BI-alerts are arguably weather-related events, such as tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, volcanic ash and even lahars, which could only impact British Columbia northwest of Mount Baker in Washington, United States. The remaining 13 BI-alert events include an array of health and safety messaging, such as AMBER (alert), civil emergency, drinking water, fallen object, dangerous animal and test messages, among others.
SOREM’s BI events list was last updated on September 3, 2014 – nearly four years prior to the CRTC mandating issuance of wireless immediate alerts. 1,307 BI-alerts have been distributed via the NAAD system in Canada from 2019-2022 (Alert Ready, 2022). There is no public disclosure methodology identifying the number of advisories distributed and the total of both BI and advisory alerts distributed publicly to date is unknown.
By the numbers
With increased consideration and public debateFootnote 4 for expanding the number of BI events, the wider impact of increased use of BI alerts must be considered.
Table 1 includes data adapted from Alert Ready with 2019-2022 alert counts referenced. 2020 totals include an erroneous radiological hazard BI alert and update distributed in Ontario. There were more broadcast and wireless immediate alerts distributed in 2022 than the previous three years combined. Of the 843 BI alerts distributed in 2022, 720 are weather-related, including tornado, wildfire, thunderstorm, flash flood, air quality and hurricane (Alert Ready, 2022).
Table 1
| Year | BI Alerts Distributed |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 131 |
| 2020 | 180 |
| 2021 | 173 |
| 2022 | 823 |
| TOTAL | 1,307 |
Note: Alert Ready Count adapted from Alert Ready, January, 2023Footnote 5
Statistics indicate the public receives more emergency alerts, but the long-term impacts are unknown. Alert fatigue (eg., Cold War) was present during air raid siren usage:
Where sirens sounded accidentally, especially during times of great international tension, the sirens provoked moments of instinctual flight response from a public that largely ignored the threat of nuclear war as an everyday survival mechanism. When sirens sounded too frequently, whether by accident or through scheduled tests, they lost their impact in the affected community, becoming in the process a source of irritation rather than fearFootnote 6.
Little is known about Alert Ready and BI alert fatigue due to the absence of contemporary research. This gap must be explored in order to provide guidance to alert issuers when considering BI alert distribution. Research would inform governing bodies, like SOREM, when critically analyzing the existing 2014 BI events list.
For example, for civil emergency events, “Definition is required, but intention is to cover events such as large riots” (SOREM BI events list, 2014). In recent years, civil emergency events have been utilized to distribute a wide variety of messaging. It encompassed Covid-19 pandemic information, advising the public to stay at home, adhere to isolation ordersFootnote 7 or implement health best practices. It has been used many times for incidents involving dangerous peopleFootnote 8 to warn the public, as the dangerous person event cannot be distributed as BI. Remarkably, the dangerous animal event does have the ability to be distributed as BI.
In 2019, reporter Mark Gollom of the CBC, highlighted the lack of public and partner support for SILVER Alerts. SILVER Alert is a program similar to AMBER Alerts, but with a focus on missing people with dementia. In the article, the director of education at the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada said, “We aren't endorsing (SILVER Alerts) because there isn't robust evidence that they actually work” (Gollom, para. 3). The director references a lack of academic research on the effectiveness of SILVER Alerts and notes alert fatigue also plays a role in deciding whether the alert would be as effective over time.
Despite the director’s concerns, three, one-year SILVER Alert pilot projects were announced in Quebec in July, 2022, mimicking similar programs in California and Arizona. Quebec’s SILVER alerts are distributed when there is an imminent threat to life for a missing senior with a major cognitive difficulty and are distributed to wireless devices only within a localized area via a BI alert. The decision to distribute a SILVER Alert rests with the Sûreté du Québec. Analysis is promised at the conclusion of the pilot project to determine whether SILVER Alerts make a difference overall (Canadian Press, 2022).
The Cost to Canadians
Considering the lives at risk during a crisis, what is the cost to the Government of Canada to create and maintain our primary NPAS?
Financially, at no charge to government authorities or broadcasters, Pelmorex continues to develop, deploy and operate the NAAD system for emergency management officials to access and distribute emergency alerts. This fact is articulated multiple times in Pelmorex’s 2017 Supplementary Brief for license renewal of TWN/MM. But what is the financial cost of the NAAD system to Canadians?
As per their CRTC-approved broadcasting license, Pelmorex is authorized to charge broadcasting distribution undertakings for distribution of TWN/MM as part of basic broadcasting services. During the 2018 CRTC public hearings to renew broadcasting licenses, Paul Temple, the Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Strategic Affairs for Pelmorex, discusses TWN/MM’s subscriber rate of $0.23 per month. This rate had not increased in the past 25 years – although not for a lack of trying. In 2007, the CRTC declined Pelmorex’s proposed $0.08 rate per subscriber increase (CRTC, 2006, para. 3) for broadcasting distribution undertakings.
In 2018, Pelmorex again proposed an increase to the 25-year-old monthly subscriber rate. Without a subscriber rate increase, Paul Temple said that regional feeds and programming extending to rural and remote areas of Canada could be compromised. When questioned by the CRTC Chairperson, Paul Temple said that Pelmorex would need to determine whether there would be any impact on the NAAD system if a rate reduction were to occur (CRTC, April 30, 2018, para. 258).
In August, 2018, the CRTC ultimately renewed TWN/MM’s broadcasting license and mandatory distribution at $0.22 per subscriber, per month until August 31, 2023. This equates to one cent lower per broadcast subscriber per month than the previous $0.23. As part of this broadcasting decision, the CRTC permitted TWN/MM to continue operating the NAAD system. As part of the hearings leading up to the CRTC’s decision, Pelmorex stated, “…there’s been really no appetite by any of our partners; we’ve never been approached to really take (emergency alerting) off from our licence service” (CRTC, 2018, para. 94).
During the same 2018 hearings, when questioned by the CRTC about what would happen to the NAAD system if the CRTC denied TWN/MM’s mandatory broadcast renewal, Paul Temple said,
…prior to our license renewal, I’ve met with government officials and…there’s never been an appetite to pay for the service directly and we made it clear to them that we rely on our distribution on the basic service and that in the absence of that, we would need separate funding. And as I said, I think people are very comfortable with the way it’s operating nowFootnote 9.
Pelmorex assumes responsibility for the NAAD system and all upgrades, maintenance, security, infrastructure and day-to-day operations at their cost. Costing numbers are not available, making it challenging to determine exactly what Pelmorex’s financial investment into the NPAS is.
If no NPAS existed, this would be perceived publicly as an emergency management failure. Considering the NPAS is utilized during incidents with an imminent risk to public safety, ultimately, lives could be lost. This leaves one to question: despite the commitment Pelmorex has to the safety of Canadians, at what point will government – potentially by way of the general public – have to begin paying for the emergency broadcast service which communicates imminent threats and emergencies? What backup plan exists to communicate critical information to Canadians, should Pelmorex, a private company, cease to exist?
PART THREE: Public expectation and cultural perception
Traditional media impact
Traditional media plays a critical role in communicating important information about unfolding events. There are breaking news banners, live streaming and reporters posting on social media as serious incidents unfold. BI alerts effectively bypass news media in communicating information about imminent threats to public safety.
Marianne Colbran’s (2020) “Policing, social media and the new media landscape: can the police and the traditional media ever successfully bypass each other?”, highlights the efforts of United Kingdom law enforcement to communicate directly with the people they serve using digital media platforms. The impact is significant, with law enforcement agencies having more control than ever in delivering messaging directly to the public, “Before social media, police organisations would communicate with the general public mainly through the news media” (p. 295).
Organizational transparency is one concern for bypassing traditional media. Should organizations have the ability to communicate directly with the public via broadcasters? What then, is the expectation of said organizations to communicate with traditional media partners?
In 2014, when the CRTC mandated that broadcasters distribute BI alerts, they eliminated the effectiveness and impact of a breaking news banner – the BI alert effectively scoops the story. With respect to direct-to-audience message delivery, alert issuers could solely rely upon the NAAD system to communicate imminent threats to their target audience.
When human lives are at risk, it is extremely unlikely any broadcaster will demand receipt of the information prior to a BI alert distributed. What is imperative is managing the delicate balance of an organization’s need to inform traditional media partners and distributing a BI alert. Its critical traditional media and alert issuers work together to build trust, share knowledge and together shape the news and information the public consumes about an unfolding critical incident.
What does the public think?
Alert issuers must constantly weigh risks associated to utilizing the NPAS. For example, in the case of law enforcement, an abductor or dangerous suspect will receive the same information communicated via a BI alert as the public, which may hinder an active investigation.
The blaring BI audio delivered via broadcast and wireless devices is formally called the Canadian Alerting Attention Signal (CAAS). The CAAS may override the settings on a personal wireless device, depending on the telecommunications company and device. This can impact the safety of responding law enforcement personnel and compromise the locations of people in hiding. Alternately, the CAAS can notify unaware, sleeping people of severe weather approaching.
There is heated public debate around the use of Alert Ready, widely covered by news media. The realities of societal shared norms, good and bad, are pushed to the forefront during and in the aftermath of human and natural-caused events.
22 people were killed in April, 2020 in a mass shooting in Nova ScotiaFootnote 10. The provincial RCMP communications team communicated with the public during the incident using Twitter. No emergency alert was distributed. This approach resulted in intense scrutiny and public criticism. Alternately, Twitter was one of the platforms their counterparts in Moncton, New Brunswick were praised for using when three RCMP officers were killed and two injured during a manhunt in June, 2014.
AMBER Alerts are distributed by law enforcement in abduction cases, when a child is in danger of imminent harm or death. In February, 2019, an 11-year-old child was abducted in the Toronto, Ontario area and BI alerts were distributed around 11:30 p.m. and 12:20 a.m. Peel Regional Police, York Regional Police and Toronto Police Service all reported their 911 communication centres received public complaints about the time the BI AMBER Alert was distributed. Others were angry the BI alert bypassed the do not disturb settings on their wireless device. In this instance, it was the BI AMBER Alert distributed which resulted in police locating the suspect and his vehicle (CityNews Everywhere, 2019). Sadly, the girl’s father was charged with first-degree murder in her death.
Law enforcement aren’t the only ones critiqued for their NPAS use.
Some Ottawa residents questioned why they weren’t forewarned about a June, 2019 tornado, while others living even a short distance away did receive a BI alert. In the aftermath of the weather event, in an interview with CBC News, Environment Canada explained the storm developed rapidly and without the expected tornado indicators. Both Environment Canada and Pelmorex noted they were conducting reviews of the incident (CBC, 2019).
In May, 2022, a fast-moving weather event called a derechoFootnote 11, hit communities in Ontario and Quebec. A BI alert was distributed in Toronto, but not in the Peterborough area where the storm ripped apart cottages, 900,000 homes and businesses had no power and 11 people died. A warning preparedness meteorologist with Environment Canada explained the BI thunderstorm alert threshold was not met at the time of the Peterborough event stating, “There’s a balance between warning people for extreme events and over-warning…I think people would start to get annoyed with us pretty quickly, so we really restrict it to those that are going to be particularly noteworthy” (Bernstien, 2022).
The NPAS replaced the previous National Attack Warning Siren system. It’s somewhat ironic the first erroneous BI alert distributed via the NPAS warned the public of an incident at a Pickering, Ontario Nuclear Generating Station. The 7:30 a.m. January 12, 2020 alert stated there was no abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and it took nearly an hour for the alert in the NPAS to be cancelled (Adlakha, A. et al, 2020).
When the test BI alert was distributed live, public and provincial and national government reaction was intense. Many criticised emergency alerting protocols. On Twitter, the Pickering mayor demanded a full investigation, tweeting, “While I am relieved that there was no actual emergency, I am upset that an error such as this occurred” (Goldfinger, 2020). Ontario’s Solicitor General later advised an investigation determined BI alerts were tested twice daily as part of Ontario’s Provincial Emergency Operations Centre procedures. A test BI alert was erroneously distributed on the live NAAD system to the public (Government of Ontario, 2020).
To gauge public opinion on wireless public alerting attitudes in Canada, the CRTC contracted a private analytics company, Kantar, to complete a research study. The report was delivered in January, 2021 and provided insight into what Canadians thought about the NPAS and whether they were satisfied with its use. A sample of 1,400 wireless device owners 16 years and older determined 86% of Canadians are aware of the NPAS, but only 60% were very satisfied with the system. 92% of respondents reported they recalled receiving an emergency alert on their wireless device, while only 31% recalled an alert on television or 24% on radio. Only 58% reported a BI alert received was relevant to them. 44% were not satisfied with the NPAS because the alert received wasn’t applicable to their geographic location. To the benefit of the NPAS, at the time the study was conducted, only 15% of respondents wanted the option to turn off BI alerts on their wireless device completely (Kantar, 2021, pp. 5-8).
Public reaction aside, the NPAS should not be solely relied upon when communicating about an emergency situation. The CRTC is funding upgrades to telecommunications network infrastructure in an effort to “close the digital divide in Canada” (CRTC, 2022). The NAAD system delivers wireless BI alerts to the public via LTE. Currently 99.55% of the Canadian population is covered by LTE, but that includes only 97.4% coverage of rural communities and 88.8% of major transport roads and highways (CRTC, 2022).
LTE coverage aside, socioeconomic factors associated to owning and maintaining a wireless device and data plan remuneration must be considered. If one can’t afford a wireless device plan, should they be exempt from receiving an emergency alert? The diversity of people within an alert distribution zone may include visitors and tourists unfamiliar with the area or without a wireless device capable of receiving an alert, and therefore, may not be warned about an unfolding event. Given this, to ensure as many people as possible are aware of unfolding emergency situations, the more methods used to communicate with the public and complement use of the NPAS, the better.
PART FOUR: The way forward
Public awareness and education
During the height of the National Attack Warning Siren system, Canadians were instructed by Civil Defense that when they heard a siren, they turned on the radio for instruction. Instead, during inadvertent siren use, the public forgot this instruction and reacted instinctively, causing traffic jams as people tried evacuating, “The wail prompted thousands of frightened residents to rush to the phones, which jammed switchboards reserved for emergency workers” (Burtch, 111).
In 2019, traditional media reported on law enforcement requests for the public not to call 911 during an upcoming test of the NPAS. The Canadian Press reported, “Some alert recipients, however, have considered them an annoyance, sparking complaints on social media -- and even calls to 911 operators -- that the emergency warnings woke them up late at night or were targeting the wrong geographic area” (2019, para. 7). After a June, 2019 tornado hit the Ottawa area, one resident who did not receive an emergency alert said, “"I'm not sure how the (NPAS) works, but something needs to be done. It needs to be fixed” (CBC, 2019).
It’s clear there’s an ongoing need for continued NPAS public education.
In 2015, a two million dollar national public education and awareness campaign was developed and funded by Pelmorex to promote the newly-branded NPAS as Alert Ready. This was a CRTC requirement upon their extension of TWN/MM’s broadcasting license (CRTC, 2014, para. 88). Over a 13-week-long public relations campaign, beginning during Emergency Preparedness Week in May, 2015, a public service advisory aired around 100,000 times via television and radio. A second, two-year public awareness campaign was launched in 2017, costing Pelmorex one million dollars. This campaign used web platforms to educate (Pelmorex, 2017, para. 71-71).
Public education continues annually with BI test emergency alerts issued every May and November (Boyczuk, para. 11). In Kantar’s 2021 wireless alerting survey commissioned by the CRTC, 69% of respondents agreed that twice-annual alert tests is the appropriate amount (p. 6). For targeting specific audiences, the report notes, “…lower awareness (of wireless public alerts) among younger and middle-aged Canadians suggests that further education and awareness campaigns may be necessary for this cohort” (Kantar, 2021, p. 8).
Expectations are high when it comes to NPAS use. Canadians expect to be warned when there is an imminent threat to life. Public education must continue to heighten awareness of the severity of the circumstances for when the NPAS is utilized and acknowledge that the speed at which some events unfold – such as a severe weather event or an active shooter situation – may conclude faster than a BI-alert can be distributed. Education must be inclusive of traditional media, so reporters better understand the complexities and challenges associated to the NPAS and the considerations alert issuers and organizations face when considering alert distribution.
Looking to the future, a conclusion
Pelmorex is currently responsible for ensuring Canadians receive emergency alerts regardless of where they live. Upgrades and enhancements to the NAAD system are referenced in publicly available working group meeting minutes and CRTC licensing testimony transcripts.
Looking ahead, there are discussions referenced within NAAD System Governance Council meeting minutes about the development of a subscription-based national mobile application for Alert Ready (Pelmorex, October, 2021, p. 3). The proposed national application would likely mimic other applications already in use by some jurisdictions, launched by provincial emergency management officials separate and apart from Alert Ready.
One example is the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency, the Treasury Board Crown Agency responsible for emergency management in Saskatchewan, which has locally branded Already Ready and NAAD system use as SaskAlert. In addition to a fulsome webpage where all active emergency alerts are fed in real time from the NAAD system and all expired emergency alerts are housed, the organization developed and maintains a mobile application under the same name (Saskatchewan.ca, Emergency Alerts, n.d.).
Saskatchewan’s platforms contrast greatly to other jurisdictions. In Manitoba, their Emergency Measures Organization website references the NAAD system’s 48-hour Really Simple Syndication feed for the public to access records of past alerts. The Province of Nova Scotia’s Emergency Management Office website lists only active provincial emergency alerts. All jurisdictions would benefit greatly from a national application, with downloadable versions also ensuring emergency alerts are available to non-LTE wireless device users. How the future of NPAS public education complements the creation of such an application and appropriate targeting of key audiences will greatly impact its success.
There are a number of for-profit companies with emergency alerting systems on offer for public, private company, post-secondary schools and municipal government use. One benefit of a subscription-based tool is the requirement to actively subscribe to receive alert notifications in a wide range of delivery modes and methods. Subscribers are also responsible for receipt of distributed alerts. One negative is wireless device users as a whole will not subscribe to receive emergency alerts, leaving a gap in public communication. The same gap relates to reliance on social media platform subscribers when communicating emergency information. Organizations must continue to complement use of the NPAS BI and non-BI alerts with other forms of communication, subscription-based or otherwise.
What are the implications of continued private ownership of a national emergency communications tool? The reality is, competition to overtake the NPAS by another private company is minimal given the significant start-up costs. Pelmorex also continues to fund ongoing maintenance and upgrades to the NAAD system at zero cost to federal/provincial/territorial government. At the April 30, 2018 CRTC hearings, Pelmorex’s Paul Temple goes so far as to say the Alert Ready system “…is a model private-public partnership” (CRTC, para. 72). It is unknown what information and proposals will be included in Pelmorex’s 2023 CRTC license renewal application for TWN/MM and subsequent CRTC public hearings. Based on past applications, Pelmorex may propose an increased subscriber rate, or other changes. At the time of writing, the CRTC has not yet launched a proceeding to renew Pelmorex’s license.
Should a singular, private company continue to maintain management of Canada’s NPAS infrastructure and what further mechanisms should be implemented to ensure public transparency, such as reporting of financial data? What is Canada’s backup plan in the event of catastrophic infrastructure failure?
Since alerting criticisms around the 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia, many Canadian law enforcement agencies have distributed dangerous person alerts as a BI civil emergency alert in order to notify the public of an imminent threat to their safety. Two years on, the 2014 SOREM BI events list has not been updated and consideration given to making the dangerous person event BI. Significant research gaps must be filled when considering updates to the existing SOREM BI events list, defining emergency alert fatigue and identifying its short and long-term impacts. Given the current role of public administration of the NPAS, do appropriate agency representatives have a voice to advocate for meaningful upgrades and advancements to the platform? Is there a fulsome perspective to implement guiding policies, principles and best practices? What concrete strategies exist for managing inappropriate use of the NPAS?
Since the CRTC mandated emergency alerts be distributed to wireless devices, they became comparable to an air raid siren in a pocket or purse. This change opened the floodgates for both positive and negative reactions and ongoing debate centered on the National Public Alerting System, yet public perception and understanding of its structure, oversight and use remains. As the CRTC approaches renewing the license associated to this important communications tool, its critical emergency planning officials at all levels and alert distributers express their concerns in a shared approach with the common goal of public safety in mind. No matter the infrastructure in place for communicating emergencies – no one solution is ideal.
Bibliography
Alert Count. (2022, December 1). Alert Ready. Retrieved December 2, 2022 from
Burtch, Andrew. (2012). Heralds of Doom. Material Culture Review, 74/75. 102-116.
Boyczuk, J. (2020, July 20). National Public Alerting System (NPAS). Public Safety Canada.
Canadian Profile of the Common Alerting Protocol Event References. (2010, October 24). Pelmorex.
Critical Alert – Civil Emergency. (2020, March 20). Saskatchewan.ca Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
Earthquake Preparedness. (2020). Public Safety Canada. Date accessed: November 27, 2022.
Emergency Alerts. (n.d). Saskatchewan.ca Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
Emergency tornado alert wasn’t issued to everyone, Ottawans complain. (2019, June 4). CBC
Executive Team. (n.d.). Pelmorex. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from:
Gow, Gordon A. (2007). Research in Brief Public Alerting in Canada, Renewing the Emergency Broadcasting System. Canadian Journal of Communication. 32 (2) 277-293.
Kantar. (2021). Exploring attitudes towards Wireless Public Alerting System in Canada.
Nova Scotia Shooting (Multiple dates). Toronto Star. Retrieved November 12, 2022 from
Pelmorex. (2017). Appendix 1: Supplementary Brief
Pelmorex. (2020). NAAD System Governance Council Update Public Summary of the June 16, 2020 Meeting.
Powell, James. (2018, November 12). Remember this? Exercise Tocsin B-1961. CityNews Everywhere.
Public alert system proposal riles Liberals. (2009, August 6). CBC News.
Warm season weather hazards. (2019, April 16). Environment Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2022 from
- Date modified: